Monteith Bros. Co. v. Dep't of Treasury of State of Indiana, No. 27200.

Docket NºNo. 27200.
Citation215 Ind. 428, 19 N.E.2d 1010
Case DateApril 03, 1939
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

215 Ind. 428
19 N.E.2d 1010

MONTEITH BROS. CO.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF STATE OF INDIANA.

No. 27200.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 3, 1939.


Action by Monteith Brothers Company, etc., against the Department of Treasury of the State of Indiana, etc., to enjoin the collection of a gross income tax from plaintiff. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

[19 N.E.2d 1010]

Appeal from Elkhart Circuit Court; Aldo J. Simpson, Judge.
Church & Chester, of Elkhart, for appellant.

Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Jos. P. McNamara, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.


TREMAIN, Chief Justice.

The appellant filed this action in the court below against the appellees to enjoin the State of Indiana from collecting from appellant Gross Income Tax provided for by Chapter 50, p. 388, of the 1933 Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana (Secs. 64-2601 to 64-2629, Burns' Ind.St.1933, Secs. 15981 to 16010, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934), amended by Chapter 117, Acts 1937, p. 604.

It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant was duly incorporated in 1924; that after the passage of Chapter 215, Acts 1929, p. 725, providing a more liberal means of incorporating under the laws of this state and granting privilege to corporations then in existence to reincorporate under the new law, the appellant did, on the 16th day of December, 1931, secure from the State of Indiana a new charter of reorganization under the act of 1929; that appellant at that time paid to the Treasurer of the state the fees prescribed and incurred upon the renewal of the corporation; that, after the reorganization was completed and the charter was issued to appellant, the State of Indiana enacted the Gross Income Tax Law of 1933, supra.

Appellant contends that the Gross Income Tax is an excise or privilege tax. This fact is not questioned. Even though the tax is an excise or a privilege tax, it is inconceivable that it could in any manner affect the charter issued to appellant in 1931. That charter authorized appellant to engage in the business of ‘rewiring, repairing and rebuilding of armatures, generators and connecting rods for automobiles,’ in the name of and as a corporation. The appellant was granted no greater privilege in rewiring, repairing, etc. than was possessed by the incorporators before the charter was issued. The issuing of the charter merely created a new artificial person authorized to engage in that business. The incorporators

[19 N.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • California Co. v. State, No. 18652
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 21, 1959
    ...a correct description.' Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, supra [304 U.S. 307, 58 S.Ct. 915]. Later, in Monteith Bros. Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 215 Ind. 428, 19 N.E.2d 1010, the appellant maintained before the Supreme Court of Indiana that the gross income tax was 'an excise or privilege tax,' to ......
  • Dooley v. City of Detroit, Nos. 53
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 9, 1963
    ...State Board of Assessment and Review (1937), 223 Iowa 604, 273 N.W. 338; Monteith Bros. Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana (1939), 215 Ind. 428, 19 N.E.2d 1010; Forrester v. Culpepper (1942), 194 Ga. 744, 22 S.E.2d 595; Herman v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1947), 189 Md. 191......
2 cases
  • California Co. v. State, No. 18652
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 21, 1959
    ...a correct description.' Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, supra [304 U.S. 307, 58 S.Ct. 915]. Later, in Monteith Bros. Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 215 Ind. 428, 19 N.E.2d 1010, the appellant maintained before the Supreme Court of Indiana that the gross income tax was 'an excise or privilege tax,' to ......
  • Dooley v. City of Detroit, Nos. 53
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 9, 1963
    ...State Board of Assessment and Review (1937), 223 Iowa 604, 273 N.W. 338; Monteith Bros. Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana (1939), 215 Ind. 428, 19 N.E.2d 1010; Forrester v. Culpepper (1942), 194 Ga. 744, 22 S.E.2d 595; Herman v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1947), 189 Md. 191......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT